The H onorab le W il li am M
. C onley, C hiefJ ud ge ofthe Un it ed  St at es Dis t ri c tCour tf or the W es t er n Di s t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 3966 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. B R OOK A BEB E , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:09- cr -00116- S EB- KPF -1

— Sarah E vansBarker, Judg e.

A RGUED J UNE 1, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 29, 2011

Befo re F L A U M a nd S YKES, Cir cu i tJudges , a nd C ONLEY, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . Bro ok A bebe pl ed gui l ty to ar m ed bank ro bber y, di schar ge ofa fi re arm duri ng a cri m e o f vi ol ence, and unla w ful posse ssi on o fa fire arm by a

### 2 No. 10-3966

c o n v i c t e d f e l o n . He c o n t e n d s th a t th e d i s t r i c t c o ur t c o mm i tte d a pro ceduraler ro r i n set ti ng hi s s entence and that hi s above

- gui delin e s en te n c e is subst anti vely unre aso nabl e. W e di sag re e a nd affi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent.

I . B a c kg r o und A bebe r obbe d a Chase Bank i n I nd i anap olis, I nd i ana, w hi l e a rm ed w i th a .38- cal iberhandgun and a ri fl e pel l et g un. Dur i ngthe r o bb er y, he o r der ed ba nke m pl o y ee s an d custo m er s a t gun point to l i e on the fl oo r and thre ate ned to ki l l them i ftheydi d not co m ply

. A bebe st ol e o ver$9 , 000 f r o m the ban ka nd di sc ha r g ed hi s ha ndg un twi ce i n the pr o c e s s , the fi r s tt i me i ns i de the b a nkwh e n he fi r e d a roun d i nt o the b an k ’ s ce i l i ng, the s ec o nd o ut si de th e ba nkwhenh e s hot a b y st an deri n the f ac e whi l e l ea ving th e sc en e. ( The by st an der su r vi ve d wi th se r i o us i nj uri es. ) A bebe th en h op ped into hi s g eta w ay car, but drove onl y o ne- hal fm i l e o r so f ro m the bank bef or e he cra shed i nto a dit ch and was subsequentl y ar re ste d. Law en for cem en t o ffi ci al s r ec o ve r ed Ab ebe’ s ha ndg un in the g et away car. Not ab l y, Abe be ha d f o urpr i o r fel o ny c o nvi cti ons at the t i m e he ro bbed the bank. Abeb e was i ndi ct ed o n th r ee ch ar g es : ar m ed bank r o bb er y, i n vi o l at i o n of18 U
. S

. C. § 21 13 ( a) a nd ( d) ( Cou nt O n e); d isc h ar ge of a fire ar m d u rin g a cr im e o f vio len c e, in vi o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C

. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( C o u n tT wo ) ; a n d u n l awful posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m by a convi cted fe l on, i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C. § 922( g) (Count T hree )

. H e pl ed gui l ty w i thout a ple a a gr eem ent t o al l thr ee counts.

### No. 10-3966 3 A t A b eb e’s se n te n c in g h ea rin g, th e d ist ric t c ou rtca lcul at ed a g ui del i ne r an g e o f8 4 to 105 months ofi m pri sonm ent o n Counts One and T h re e, note d that Count Thr ee h ad a m axi m um se ntence of12 0 m onths of im p risonm en t, an d f ou nd A beb e sub j ect to a m an d atory mi ni mum s e nt e nc e o f1 2 0 mo nths o fi mpr i s o nme nto n Count Tw o, to run co nsecuti vel y t o Counts One and Three. A fter hearing argu m en ts from bothsides, the d istri ct cou rt consi dered the fact or s in § 3553( a) and sentenced A bebe to 300 m onths’ i m pri sonm en t, consi sti ng o f18 0 m onths on Cou ntOne , a co nc ur r en t s en te nc e o f1 20 months o n Co unt Thr ee , a nd a c o ns ec ut i ve s en te nc e o f1 20 months o n Co unt Tw o. I t a l so or dered Abebe to pay re sti tuti on a nd i m posed fi v e y e a r s o fs u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e on C o u n t s O n e a n d T wo and thre e y ear s o fsuperv i sed r ele ase o n Count Three, to run co ncurr entl y.

I I . Discussi on A beb e d irectly ap p eals, arguing that the d istri ct cou rt proce du ra l l y e rr ed i n set ti ng h is sentence a nd that hi s above

- gu id elin e s en te n ce i s s ubstantively unre aso nabl e. W e di sc us s ea cha r g um en t i n tur n.

1. Pr ocedura l Err or A bebe cla i m s that the d i str i ct courter ro neousl y focuse d on r eas onabl eness w hen setti ng his sente nce, i nstea d ofo n i m posi ng a sente nce “s ufficien t, but not gr eat erthan necess ar y, ” to c om plywith the f acto rs i n § 3 553( a) ( 2)

. 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a)

. W e r evi ew de no vo w hetherthe dist ri ct

### 4 No. 10-3966

c ou rtfollow ed p ro p er p ro c ed u re s a t s en te n c in g. U nited S t a t e s v . Pape, 6 01 F.3d 74 3, 74 6 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited St at e s v. Coopm an , 602 F.3d 814 , 817 (7th C ir. 2010). Se c tio n 35 53 (a) p ro vid es th at se n te n c in g c o u r ts “s h all i mpo s e a s e nt e nc e s uffi c i e nt, b ut no t g r e a t e r tha n neces s a r y, t o c o mp l y wi th the p ur po s e s s e tf o r th i n pa r a g r a ph (2) of this sub s e c t ion,” an d then l ists a nu m ber of f acto rs th atthe c o ur ts “ sh al l c o ns i der

. ” 18 U. S

. C. § 3 55 3( a)

. But cour ts ar e no t r equi re d to express l y r eferto thatpro vi si on at se n te n c in g. See U nited Sta tes v. T yra , 45 4 F
. 3d 686, 68 7- 88 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( r ej ec tinga de f en dan t’ s ar g um en t th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t co m m i tt ed a pr o ce dur ale r r o r b ec au se , he cl ai m ed, i t was notcl earthatthe dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that hi s sentence was “suffi ci ent, but not gr eat erthan ne cess ar y, ” to c o m pl y wi ththe g o al s i n § 3 55 3( a) , a nd ex p lain in g t h at “d ist r i c t c ou rt s n ee d n otrec ite an y m ag ic w ord s at sen ten cing to assu re us th at th e correct sta nd ard i s be i ngus ed” )

. Ra th er, the y m ust “ ’ ( 1) c al cul at e th e appl i cabl e Gu idel i ne s r an g e; ( 2) g i ve the de f en dan t an opportunity to i denti fy any of the 18 U
. S. C. § 3553( a) f ac to r s th atmightwar r an t a no n- Gui del i ne s se nt en ce ; a nd (3) s ta te w h ich fac to r s in flu en c ed th e fin al s en te n c e.’ ” U nited Sta tes v. C urb , 62 6 F
. 3d 921, 92 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v . C a mp os , 5 41 F. 3d 735, 74 9- 50 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 )); see also T

yra , 45 4 F
. 3d at 687- 88. “ ’ The sente nci ng j ud ge shoul d set f or th eno ugh to sa ti sfy the appel l ate co ur t th athe ha s co ns i der ed th e par ti es ’ a rgum ent s an d has a r eas oned bas i s f orexer ci si ng hi s o w n l ega l deci si on m aki ng autho ri ty. ’ ” C urb , 62 6 F .3d at92 6 ( quoti ng Rit a v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U
. S. 338, 356 (2007 )) . B u t “[t] he cou rt ne ed no t m ak e f ac tu al fi ndi ng s as to e ac h o fthe s en te nc i ng

### No. 10-3966 5 factors; i t is su ffici en t th at th e record sh ow s tha t the cou rt consi dered the m . ” Cam pos , 54 1 F
. 3d at 750. W e fi nd no ind ication in th e record that the d istri ct cou rt did not com plywith i ts obl i gat i on t o setA bebe ’ s s entence at a l eve l “s uffi ci ent, but not gr eat erthan nece ss ar y,” to s a t is fy the goals of sen ten cing. Furth er, the d istri ct cou rt did not er r by sta ti ng at sente nci ng that i t s ought to i m pose a “r ea so nabl e” se nt en ce , o r by ne ve r ex pr es sl y ment i o ni ng i ts o bl i g at i o n t o i m po se a sent en ce tha t i s “s uffi ci en t, b ut n otgre at er th an n ec es sa ry ,” to co m p ly w ith th e fa c to r s in § 3 553( a)( 2)

. 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a)

. Dis tr i ct c ourt s a re not prohibi ted fro m usi n g th e word “r eas onabl e” at sente ncin g, n or are th ey req u ire d to ex p re ss l y m en tio n th eir obl i gat i on to i m pose a sente nce “suffi ci ent, but notgr eat er than nece ssa ry, ” t o com plywith the go al s o fse nten c ing. See T yra , 454 F.3d at68 7-8 8. The dis tr i ct cour t did exactl y w hat w e ask cour ts to do at sente nci ng. I t ca l cul ate d the appl i cabl e guidel i nes r ange, co ns i der ed Abeb e’ s ar g um ents fora l o wer s en te nc e, a nd d isc u ss ed an d ap p lied th e fa c to rs in § 35 53 (a), sp ec ifica lly focus ing on the n atu re and circum stan ces of A beb e’s o ff en se a nd hi s hi st o r y a nd c ha r ac te r i st i cs. We fi nd no p roced ura l error.

2. Sub st anti ve U nrea sonableness W e al so di sa g r ee wi thA beb e’ s ar g um en t th athi s se nte nc e, s ev en ty
- fi ve m o nths ab o ve th e appl i cabl e g ui del i ne ra nge, i s s ubstanti vel y unre aso nabl e. “W e ‘ w i l l uphol d an abov e-guid eli ne s sen ten ce so long as th e d istri ct c o urt

### 6 No. 10-3966

o ff er ed ana dequa te s ta te m en t o fi ts r easons, c o ns i st en t w i t h 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a), for im p os in g s u c h a se n te n c e.’ There i s no pre sum pti on that a sentence outsi de the guidel i nes’ r ange i s unre aso nabl e. ” U ni t e d St at e s v. Al dr i dge, N o. 09-2520 , sli p op . at 12, 2011 W L 1518 834, at *6 ( 7th Cir. A p r. 22, 20 11) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. M cIn tyre, 53 1 F
. 3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2008)). The f act that w e “ m ight re aso nabl y hav e co ncl ud ed th ata di ff er en t se nt en ce was a ppr o pr i at e i s i ns uffi ci en t to j usti fy rever salo fthe dist ri ct c ourt
. ” Our r evi ew m us t ta k e i nt o a cc o unttha t a “s en te nc i ng j udg e i s i n a su per i o r po si ti o n t o fi nd f ac ts a nd j udg e th ei r i m p ort unde r [ se ct i o n] 3553( a) i n the i ndi vi dualc as e. The j ud ge se es and hears the evi dence, m ake s cr edibi l i ty det er m i na ti o ns , has full kno wl edg e o fthe f ac ts a nd gai ns i nsi ghts not conve yed bythe re cor d.” Because the di str i ct c ourthas gr eat er fa m i l i ar i ty w i th the cas e an d the i ndi vi dualdefen dan t a nd the r efo r e ani ns ti tu
ti o na l a dva nt ag e o ve r a n a pp el l at e co ur t i n mak i ng sentenci ng dete rm i nati ons, we m ust defer, abs ent a n ab u se of d isc re tio n, to its ru lin g. U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 53 8 F .3d 7 84, 79 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 38, 51 (2007)). The di st r i ctc o ur t co ns i der ed the f ac to r s i n § 3 55 3( a) a nd adequatel y a rt i cul ate d i ts deci si on t o i m po se a n abo veg ui del ine se nt en ce . S pec i fi ca l l y, i t ex pl aine d tha t “the na tu re and circum stan ces of this offen se a r e by every m eas ure hor ri fi c, ” a nd thatthe nature ofthe cri m e was not suffi ci entl y a ccounted f orby the gui del i nes. I t a l so em phasi zed thatA bebe car ri ed tw o fi re ar m s duri ng the r obbe ry,

### No. 10-3966 7 fi re d his handgun “tw i ce, o nce t o s c ar e th e wit s o ut o f p eo p le, and the othe r to com e withi n a hai r’ s br eadth o f t a k i n ga l i f e , ” t e r r o r i z e d th e b a n k ’ s e mp l o y e e s a n d c u s t o mer s, for c in g t h em “t o lie d ow n on th e g r o u n d an d

. . . wonde r[ ] i fthe y wer e dr awi ngthe i r l as t br ea th, ” an d pla ced peopl e a t r i sk. A l though Abebe c on tends thata w ith in -gu id elin e s en te n c e w ou ld h av e ke p t h im in jail u n til h is e ar ly-6 0s a n d t h u s th at h is ab ov e-g u id elin e s en te n c e is no t ne ce ss ar y t o pr o te ctthe pub l i c f r o m hi m c o m m i tt i ng m o r e cr i m es , we fi nd no abus e o fdi sc r et i o n i n s en te nc i ng h im to 30 0 m on th s o f im p ris on m en t. Cf. U ni t e d S t at e s v. E ll is , 62 2 F
. 3d 784, 80 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( up hold i ng a 90- m onth s entence wh er e the appli cabl e gui del i ne r ange w as 4 6 t o 5 7 m on th s); U nited Sta tes v. M cK inn ey, 54 3 F
. 3d 911, 912, 91 3-1 4 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ) (u p h old in g a 29 3-m on th sentence w here the appli cabl e guidel i ne r an ge w as 188 to 235 m ont hs ).

I I I . Concl usio n W e A F F I R M the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

6- 29- 11